Yes, It's Fascism: Until recently, I thought it a term best avoided. But now, the resemblances are too many and too...

[demmiblue]

Until recently, I thought it a term best avoided. But now, the resemblances are too many and too strong to deny.

Until recently, I resisted using the F-word to describe President Trump. For one thing, there were too many elements of classical fascism that didn’t seem to fit. For another, the term has been overused to the point of meaninglessness, especially by left-leaning types who call you a fascist if you oppose abortion or affirmative action. For yet another, the term is hazily defined, even by its adherents. From the beginning, fascism has been an incoherent doctrine, and even today scholars can’t agree on its definition. Italy’s original version differed from Germany’s, which differed from Spain’s, which differed from Japan’s.

I accepted President Biden’s characterization of the MAGA movement as “semi-fascist” because some parallels were glaringly apparent. Trump was definitely an authoritarian, and unquestionably a patrimonialist. Beyond that, though, the best description seemed to be a psychological one propounded by John Bolton, Trump’s first-term national security adviser: “He listens to Putin, he listens to Xi, he listens to how they talk about governing unburdened by uncooperative legislatures, unconcerned with what the judiciary may do, and he thinks to himself, Why can’t I do that? This doesn’t amount to being a fascist, in my view, [or] having a theory of how you want to govern. It’s just Why can’t I have the same fun they have?”

Writing a year ago, I argued that Trump’s governing regime is a version of patrimonialism, in which the state is treated as the personal property and family business of the leader. That is still true. But, as I also noted then, patrimonialism is a style of governing, not a formal ideology or system. It can be layered atop all kinds of organizational structures, including not just national governments but also urban political machines such as Tammany Hall, criminal gangs such as the Mafia, and even religious cults. Because its only firm principle is personal loyalty to the boss, it has no specific agenda. Fascism, in contrast, is ideological, aggressive, and, at least in its early stages, revolutionary. It seeks to dominate politics, to crush resistance, and to rewrite the social contract.

Over Trump’s past year, what originally looked like an effort to make the government his personal plaything has drifted distinctly toward doctrinal and operational fascism. Trump’s appetite for lebensraum, his claim of unlimited power, his support for the global far right, his politicization of the justice system, his deployment of performative brutality, his ostentatious violation of rights, his creation of a national paramilitary police—all of those developments bespeak something more purposeful and sinister than run-of-the-mill greed or gangsterism.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/america-fascism-trump-maga-ice/685751/?gift=ODji60Co-V8LK48lJqeLjpEKqmqEMZol30Ut1hPNxvY

Important read.

— George Hahn (@georgehahn.com) 2026-01-25T20:43:08.743Z

[rampartd]

1. the cult like control

mass hypnotism and subliminal messaging,

doesn't trumpism run past "authoritarian" movements like fascism and firmly into the "totalitarian" column?

a quick blurb from copilot "

Kirkpatrick Authoritarian Totalitarian
Jeane Kirkpatrick's distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes was a cornerstone of her foreign policy doctrine. She argued that authoritarian regimes are more stable and self-perpetuating than totalitarian regimes, which are more ideologically rigid and expansionist. Kirkpatrick's doctrine was particularly influential during the Cold War, where the U.S. supported anti-communist dictatorships in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. She believed that authoritarian regimes are more amenable to gradual reform in a democratic direction than totalitarian regimes, which often attempt to control the thoughts of their subjects and undermine community institutions. Kirkpatrick's tenet that totalitarian regimes are more stable than authoritarian regimes has come under criticism since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, particularly as Kirkpatrick predicted that the Soviet system would persist for decades.